La objeción de conciencia en el debate sobre la despenalización del aborto por tres causales en Chile

Abstract

Background: objection on grounds of conscience by health care professionals is generally recognized as a personal, private refusal to perform a legal duty deemed unjust and deleterious to the objector's moral conscience. Conscientious objection has become a central aspect of the debate on the proposed decriminalization of abortion on three grounds currently underway in Chile. Methods: this article describes the main constituent elements of the associated public debate, covering from the early efforts to restore therapeutic pregnancy termination through to the draft decriminalization legislation now being discussed in Congress. All data comes from a review of leading media outlets; key participants, institutions and prevailing discourses are identified. Results: the said review encompassed 251 media items and 215 key players affiliated mostly with the Chamber of Deputies, universities, and government. Themes prevailing in associated discourses reference conscientious objection by personal and institutional players, as well as the attendant controversy over its legitimacy and possible consequences. Discussion: this article posits that the constitutional right to freedom of conscience should be scrutinized further with due regard to the limits existing in rule-of-law democracies and to the ethical standards governing doctor-patient relationships. The exercise of conscientious objection privilege needs to be regulated in order to prevent infringement of fundamental rights, especially those of particularly vulnerable segments of the population.